SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
President Trump has accused former President Obama of... something:
In a string of tweets posted early Saturday morning, President Trump let loose a barrage of accusations at his predecessor. He alleged that former President Obama had his "wires tapped" in Trump Tower before Election Day last year, accusing Obama of "McCarthyism" and being a "bad (or sick) guy."
Trump, who is under significant scrutiny for his administration's contacts with Russia before he took office, offered no evidence to support his claims Saturday morning. Neither the White House nor Obama's office has responded immediately to NPR's requests for comment.
[...] Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 4, 2017Is it legal for a sitting President to be "wire tapping" a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 4, 2017I'd bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 4, 2017How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 4, 2017
Also at WaPo, NYT, Reuters, Fox News, BBC, and Snopes, which hints that it may be related to this story.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 05 2017, @08:03AM (68 children)
Well, I think Trump has enough sanity to make such a serious accusation only with some evidence to support it.
Lol.
The dumbass read a breitbart article and popped-off.
Two people close to Mr. Trump said they believed he was referring to a Breitbart News article, which aides said had been passed around among his advisers. Mark Levin, a conservative radio host, had also embraced the theory recently in a push against what right-leaning commentators have been calling the “deep state.”
The Breitbart article, published on Friday, claimed that there was a series of “known steps taken by President Barack Obama’s administration in its last months to undermine Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and, later, his new administration.” Stephen K. Bannon, Mr. Trump’s chief strategist, once led Breitbart News.
Seriously. Our president gets his info from breitbart because the editor in chief of breitbart is his closest advisor in the whitehouse.
And you think he "has enough sanity" to do anything?
That says way more about you than it does about him.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Sunday March 05 2017, @08:25AM (67 children)
Lol. The dumbass read a breitbart article and popped-off.
He would have the resources to verify that independently, say by interrogating FBI staff directly and looking at the actual warrant in question (if there is one).
I get you're hoping beyond hope that Trump is some insane imbecile. Maybe all the smack he talks on Twitter is evidence of that. But it strikes me that this hope is a really lousy and delusional bet. I doubt, for example, that you'd have thought he was so crazy or stupid, when he was just a rich guy with limited ability to do anything.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by q.kontinuum on Sunday March 05 2017, @09:19AM (17 children)
I get you're hoping beyond hope that Trump is not some insane imbecile.
Ftfy... seriously: No one in his right state of mind hoped the guy with the access to the nuclear codes is as deranged as Trump appeared.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 05 2017, @01:48PM (16 children)
Ftfy... seriously: No one in his right state of mind hoped the guy with the access to the nuclear codes is as deranged as Trump appeared.
Indeed. I think there are quite a fair number of people in this thread who aren't in their right state of mind.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Sunday March 05 2017, @03:10PM
Nobody hopes that Trump is insane.
However, one should not rule out the possibility.
It is kind of like watching a train wreck in slow-motion.
(Score: 4, Funny) by aristarchus on Sunday March 05 2017, @06:30PM
fair number of people in this thread who aren't in their right state of mind.
Well, one for sure, the one that doesn't think that Trump is quite insane. C'mon, khallow! Darth Cheetos can't tell the difference from an NSA tap, which you never find out about, and a Russian tap! In fact, is not "Russian Tap" just another term for "golden shower"?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 05 2017, @06:38PM (13 children)
Haha, I love that one. If you don't see things the way I see them, you're mentally ill. I've learned from experience that such sentiments are usually precursors to violence. ymmv
(Score: 1) by Demena on Monday March 06 2017, @12:06AM (11 children)
This from one who remains anonymous while all others are named. You either a troll or a fool but not fool enough to attach you own handle. if you do not have one try "worthless".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 06 2017, @12:34AM (10 children)
"Demena"? Short for "dementia"? Well now that we all know who you are and what your background is, (not a native English speaker, I am guessing, hmm, immigrant, or just foreigner? Russkie?) we will all give your comment the weight it deserves. (My Good, is there a Full Moon in the offing? But that would be more "Lunacy" than "Demena".)
Yours, AC (We are Legion!)
(Score: 1) by Demena on Monday March 06 2017, @12:42AM (4 children)
There used to be a rule on the green pages that you could be banned for mocking someone's handle or name. It was a good rule.
You post as anonymous coward and that long with the ad hominem attacks show your nature and worth.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 06 2017, @03:40AM
There used to be a rule on the green pages that you could be banned for mocking someone's handle or name.
And so when I defend the good name of Anonymous Coward, you get your panties all up in a bunch?
It was a good rule.
What are these green pages of which you speak? Are they similar to the yellow pages? Or some kind of stamps? Of all the things you have lost, do you miss your mind the most?
You post as anonymous coward and that long with the ad hominem attacks show your nature and worth.
How long is your ad hominem? I really do not have the time nor the patience to point out to you the total ignorance of your original response, but I can tell you that it is not an ad hominem to point out that you are being a dick. It is just pointing out that you are being a dick. Stop that, or we may have to send you back to Bedlam.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 06 2017, @10:24AM (2 children)
There used to be a rule on the green pages that you could be banned for mocking someone's handle or name. It was a good rule.
What "green pages" are you referring to?
Because, as someone with a 4-digit uid on slashdot, I call bullshit on that lie.
Too bad there wasn't a rule about banning whiny little bitches though.
(Score: 1) by Demena on Monday March 06 2017, @10:27AM (1 child)
An Anonymous coward does not get to call bullshit on anything.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 06 2017, @10:30AM
BULLSHIT! {-called it!
(Score: 1) by Demena on Monday March 06 2017, @01:02AM (4 children)
Oh, and FWIW, I am a native English speaker and if you are American then you are not.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 06 2017, @03:44AM (3 children)
Oh, and FWIW, I am a native English speaker and if you are American then you are not.
I will have to take your word for this, however strangely put together your English words may be. Brit, eh? But then wot? Northern, Midlands, Anglo-Saxon? Pict, Gael, or Briton? By the way, for what it is worth on the other end, I am no American. So what was your insightful point you were trying to make before you got all caught up in the hurt feefees?
(Score: 1) by Demena on Monday March 06 2017, @04:48AM (2 children)
I'm not hurt. I am amused that you think trying to hurt someone is a valid argument.
The insightful point is that I _am_ a native English speaker and you were as wrong about that as you are about everything else.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 06 2017, @06:35AM (1 child)
Fucking demented Auzzie! Get the fuck out! You and your goddamned Dingo! You descendent of criminals! You scum and filth of the British Empire! You have the gall to accuse Americans of not speaking English? And you claim you are not hurt! All of us ACs, the Five Thousand Plus of us here on SoylentNews, feel your pain. We can smell the fear within you! You want to be a Trump supporter, but you cannot, since your Magesties Government prohibits it! So sad. Valid argument? If all you can bring to the table is your ignorant misinterpretation of American politics, I suggest you go on Walkabout. I am not trying to hurt you, you are hurting yourself with your own unacknowledged ignorance. This is what Walkabout is for. Never been, have you?
Insultingly yours,
AC
P.S. Try harder later. Bandicoots await you where the green ants dream.
(Score: 1) by Demena on Monday March 06 2017, @10:33AM
I should stop this but you are too entertaining. Do you even remember what it was all about? With an AC here and an AC there (everywhere an AC) only Trump could follow it all... Most Australian indulge in walkabout although it is more often Flyabout nowadays. Why is why many Australians are a little more aware of world issues and politics than many Americans. Travel broadens the mind at the expense of your backside. Try it sometime.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 06 2017, @02:11PM
Haha, I love that one. If you don't see things the way I see them, you're mentally ill. I've learned from experience that such sentiments are usually precursors to violence. ymmv
I'll note two things here. First, I disagree on that assertion. Sure, there are some viewpoints such as "Trump is very evil and very stupid" or getting too involved Marxism that I do see as mentally ill. But even then, I believe the remedy is simple. Think about the beliefs in question rather than merely accept them. A more rational person might still have some shade of these beliefs because that's in their self-interest to have, but at least, they wouldn't be making silly arguments on the internet (such as comparing Trump to Hitler before Trump has ever had a chance to do anything Hitler-like).
In fact, this has already happened to some degree. Aside from one poster and myself just now, no one has made the inevitable comparison to Hitler. I think that is a positive direction.
At some point, opponents of Trump will want support for their viewpoints, particularly if they're in the US. (Re)learning how to convince people would be helpful to that. For example, not everyone will think that Trump is the worst thing ever. Thus, one would need to start from that viewpoint and present arguments that are convincing rather than assume everyone (or at least everyone worth convincing) will equally despise Trump.
What is routinely forgotten here is that Trump was elected not because a near majority believe in him (much less believe him), but because he wasn't Clinton or perceived as establishment. He goes into this term with some of the weakest support a US president has ever received and still gotten elected. If he really is going off the rails as claimed, it should be easy to overturn his influence in 2018 and 2020. For the US Democrats here, a key part of the strategy would be not nominating a terrible candidate.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 05 2017, @09:29AM (3 children)
He would have the resources to verify that independently
having ≠ using
I don't think he cares if it's actually true or not. After all, he has a habit of directly contradicting written, photographic, audio, and video evidence when he doesn't like it.
"Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 05 2017, @07:45PM (2 children)
Clapper says it didn't happen: http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/05/politics/clapper-trump-wiretap/ [cnn.com]
Corey says it did! And even happened to another liar to Congress! http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/lewandowski-obama-administration-listened-in-on-sessions/article/2616496 [washingtonexaminer.com]
And I know from the FISA authorized taps on khallow that this whole thing is very truthy, and even if it all contradicts reality, well, reality has a well-known liberal bias. That is why TRump had to weaponize the narrative.
In other news, it looks like Steve Bannon got punched in the face? https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_960w/2010-2019/Wires/Images/2017-03-05/AP/APTOPIX_March_4_Trump_California_64792-0c5c6.jpg&w=480 [washingtonpost.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 05 2017, @08:08PM (1 child)
clapper's a professional liar, ffs. also, i didn't vote for trump but i kind of wish i was a big supporter just so i could show these "people" assaulting supporters/random white people what i think of them. I've yet to see anyone blocking my roads or endangering innocents so i remain peaceful. Also, "TV people" often don't represent real people, i've come to learn.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 05 2017, @10:29PM
Not "random white people", Trump supporters! You know, Nazis! The ethical question of our day is whether it is alright to just punch a Nazi in the face. Richard Spencer seems alright with it. You have your own Nazi roads that could be blocked? I would be very worried if I were you, you sound like just the kind of person all these Soros-paid violent professional wire-tappers would be after!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 05 2017, @12:53PM
He would have the resources to verify that independently, say by interrogating FBI staff directly and looking at the actual warrant in question (if there is one).
He does, but he won't bother to look deeper. He's seen it on a news source he trusts.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 05 2017, @01:14PM (11 children)
He would have the resources to verify that independently, say by interrogating FBI staff directly and looking at the actual warrant in question (if there is one).
Yes. He's tried that. And doing that is a HUGE violation of the FBI's independence.
And so the reports of him trying that have been leaking all over and were also mentioned in that same NYT article,.
But a senior White House official said that Donald F. McGahn II, the president’s chief counsel, was working to secure access to what Mr. McGahn believed to be an order issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court authorizing some form of surveillance related to Mr. Trump and his associates.
The official offered no evidence to support the notion that such an order exists. It would be a highly unusual breach of the Justice Department’s traditional independence on law enforcement matters for the White House to order it to turn over such an investigative document.
Any request for information from a top White House official about a continuing investigation would be a stunning departure from protocols intended to insulate the F.B.I. from political pressure. It would be even more surprising for the White House to seek information about a case directly involving the president or his advisers, as does the case involving the Russia contacts.
After the White House received heavy criticism for the suggestion that Mr. McGahn would breach Justice Department independence, a different administration official said that the earlier statements about his efforts had been overstated. The official said the counsel’s office was looking at whether there was any legal possibility of gleaning information without impeding or interfering with an investigation. The counsel’s office does not know whether an investigation exists, the official said
The fact that you think you have any idea what's going on but haven't even read the reporting on it is totally believable. The reporting could be in error. But you have your head so far up your butt that, like Trump, you don't think you need to even do the research before running your mouth like a total moron. You are the ideal trump supporter, ignorant as shit and happy to stay that way.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Sunday March 05 2017, @01:46PM (10 children)
The fact that you think you have any idea what's going on but haven't even read the reporting on it is totally believable. The reporting could be in error. But you have your head so far up your butt that, like Trump, you don't think you need to even do the research before running your mouth like a total moron. You are the ideal trump supporter, ignorant as shit and happy to stay that way.
Sounds like I can just quote this back at you. Thanks for a little insight, but we do need to remember that there is no such insulation of the FBI from the executive branch. It is a tool of the President for good and evil.
I'm quite aware that the President may be acting solely on the basis of the Breibart story. That still doesn't mean he is as stupid and crazy as hoped by the many detractors in this thread. There is an obvious pretext to interfere with the workings of the FBI here. After all, how does Trump know that the FBI has acted in a lawful manner without investigating it in some way?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 05 2017, @01:55PM (5 children)
Thanks for a little insight, but we do need to remember that there is no such insulation of the FBI from the executive branch.
Are you in the habit of asserting falsehoods just because they reinforce your biases?
Or is your knowledge of how the US government works limited to the first week of a high-school civics class?
Because the fact that the FBI is in the executive branch does not mean there are no barriers between the president and the FBI.
Just because they aren't as strong as the barriers between the president and the judiciary doesn't mean there are none.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Sunday March 05 2017, @04:06PM (4 children)
You have your own habits. You insist on being a tiresome tool. The Donald may prove to be a total fuckup, but you could at least let him prove it. You do realize that you have two ears, two eyes, and only the one mouth? Use your ears and eyes, and give the mouth a break, alright?
Meanwhile, I'm still grateful that Hillary didn't win. She would have invaded Syria by now, and we'd be nose-to-nose with the Russians. The same Russians who "hacked" the election, LMAO!!
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 05 2017, @04:36PM (2 children)
The Donald may prove to be a total fuckup, but you could at least let him prove it. You do realize that you have two ears, two eyes, and only the one mouth? Use your ears and eyes, and give the mouth a break, alright?
Awwww, runaway wants a safe-space free of trump criticism.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday March 05 2017, @04:50PM (1 child)
No stupid - criticize the fool. Just try to make some sense when you do. The endless rant is tiresome.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 05 2017, @05:02PM
Lol, you literally complained about "ranting" in a rant of your own.
Do as I say, not as I do!
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 05 2017, @06:45PM
The Donald may prove to be a total fuckup, but you could at least let him prove it.
He seems to be continuing Bush's and Obama's unconstitutional mass surveillance of the populace. That's strike one and you're out. But he also doesn't show any signs of scrapping the TSA, doesn't want to shut down Gitmo, has supported asset forfeiture, has supported the drug war, and has appointed numerous corrupt people to positions of power. Trump has already proven himself to be garbage, just like Obama and Bush did, and he did so almost immediately. Doing the occasional good thing (scrapping the TPP) does not make up for continuing the previous policies of violating our fundamental liberties. To me, if a politician violates the Constitution, that is treason; they are nearly all traitors.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 05 2017, @06:35PM
I'm quite aware that the President may be acting solely on the basis of the Breibart story. That still doesn't mean he is as stupid and crazy as hoped by the many detractors in this thread.
The stupid runs strong in this one! Listen, you poor, pathetic excuse for a conservative, basing anything on a Brietbart is the classic definition of crazy and stupid! The only possible alternative (oh noes, that word again?) explanation is that he knows he is lying, because he knows Brieffart is lying and does not actually believe the story. Why are you defending such obvious idiots? It only makes you look bad, khallow!
(Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Sunday March 05 2017, @08:15PM
That still doesn't mean he is as stupid and crazy as hoped by the many detractors in this thread.
I, for one, certainly hope he is not as stupid and crazy as the current "filter-bubble" view of him is.
But it's not looking good on that score.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday March 06 2017, @05:37PM (1 child)
...but haven't even read the reporting on it is totally believable
Sounds like I can just quote this back at you.
Generally, if someone is using direct quotes from the reporting it's a pretty good bet that they did in fact read the reporting.
On the other hand, when someone post's absolutely zero evidence for their claims, it's a good bet that they didn't.
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Monday March 06 2017, @07:21PM
The vacancies at Justice required Trump to name successors, and he took the opportunity to shuffle the succession plan released as recently as Jan. 13 by then-President Obama.
[...]
Obama, by contrast, had named as successors to the main attorneys general and deputies not Boente but the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia (Channing Phillips); followed by Fardon; followed by the U.S. attorney for the Central District of California (Eileen Decker).
The game here is that including partisan Democrats in the chain of succession for the Attorney General allows for the opportunity to do embarrassing things to the president such as frivolously create investigations and leaks when Sessions is out of the office.
Incidentally, this reminds me of the pointless scolding I received from an AC on "norms" [soylentnews.org].
What you fail to understand, which is completely understandable since you are so ignorant of how the world works, is that the office of presidency has been guided by norms. One of those norms is that arbitrarily undoing the actions of a previous president is only done under exceptional circumstances. In other words, there is a huge difference between ability do something and actually doing it.
So here we have yet more norms which aren't really norms. A department reshuffle solely for the purpose of causing grief for a successor. And an investigation which isn't really an investigation (even if you do consider FISA courts to be a valid means to issue warrants).
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 05 2017, @01:26PM (14 children)
I doubt, for example, that you'd have thought he was so crazy or stupid, when he was just a rich guy with limited ability to do anything.
Oh don't even try to tell me what I thought about him before he ran for president.
He's always been a buffoon who was insulated from his fuckups by being born into money.
Everybody knew about his multiple bankruptcies with the airline and casinos.
Everybody knew about how he took out full page ads in major new york newspaper calling for innocent black teens to get the death penalty.
Everybody knew how he was a caricature of rich people wanting to put his name on everything, live in a gold-plated palace and scream "your fired" at people he didn't like.
Anybody with half a brain has known that he's a blithering racist idiot. The question is why the fuck haven't you been able to figure it out?
I say you don't even have half a brain. Do you have a better explanation?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 05 2017, @02:06PM (13 children)
Everybody knew about how he took out full page ads in major new york newspaper calling for innocent black teens to get the death penalty.
First, I've heard of that [newyorker.com].
(Score: 4, Informative) by NotSanguine on Sunday March 05 2017, @11:19PM (12 children)
Everybody knew about how he took out full page ads in major new york newspaper calling for innocent black teens to get the death penalty.
First, I've heard of that.
Then perhaps you should step outside of your protective bubble and pay attention, rather than spouting off when you clearly have no idea as to what you're blathering on about. It isn't anything new [wikipedia.org], nor was it particularly surprising when it happened, to those of us who had already been assaulted by Trump's twisted view of reality for more than a decade at that point.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by khallow on Sunday March 05 2017, @11:51PM (11 children)
(Score: 4, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Monday March 06 2017, @12:16AM (10 children)
I appreciate your successful efforts to educate me a little. I don't appreciate the fallacy of concluding that I'm completely ignorant of Trump's views merely because I hadn't heard of this item.
You're welcome.
You make a good point. I did lay the the mockery on a bit thick in my reply to you. However, Trump's utter lack of regard or respect for anyone (or anything) but himself isn't anything new. As I pointed out in another thread [soylentnews.org], I am rather depressed by the lack of interest or knowledge of even recent history by too many.
While you do tend to be both combative and hyperbolic, perhaps my annoyance with a more generalized lack of knowledge about recent history led me to be unduly harsh.
I offer my apologies, Khallow.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 06 2017, @07:12AM
While you do tend to be both combative and hyperbolic, perhaps my annoyance with a more generalized lack of knowledge about recent history led me to be unduly harsh.
Username checks out.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday March 06 2017, @07:44AM (8 children)
I offer my apologies, Khallow.
OH MY FSM, do not do that! It will only encourage him! He has learned nothing, he has only been proven, once again, of many times, to be factually in error! and it is not a mistake! khallow gets things wrong on purpose! I used to think he was just stupid, but then he confessed he has a terminal degree. Unfortunately it is one of those degrees that requires very little actual thinking. So when we can call out his duplicity, his two-facedness, his perfidy and perversity, we should just do it. No apologies necessary. No walking it back, the accusations are deserved. Do not let khallow become our own SoylentNews Trump. Just don't let it happen.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday March 06 2017, @08:14AM (7 children)
I offer my apologies, Khallow.
OH MY FSM, do not do that! It will only encourage him! He has learned nothing, he has only been proven, once again, of many times, to be factually in error! and it is not a mistake! khallow gets things wrong on purpose! I used to think he was just stupid, but then he confessed he has a terminal degree. Unfortunately it is one of those degrees that requires very little actual thinking. So when we can call out his duplicity, his two-facedness, his perfidy and perversity, we should just do it. No apologies necessary. No walking it back, the accusations are deserved. Do not let khallow become our own SoylentNews Trump. Just don't let it happen.
I understand your point of view. I have to disagree, however. Khallow was correct that his ignorance of the full-page ads taken out by L'Orange doesn't mean he's completely ignorant of Cheeto Jesus and his ways. Since I'm not a complete asshole, I can, and will, admit when I'm wrong. In this case, I erroneously tarred Khallow with a broad brush. I was wrong, and I'm not afraid to admit it.
That said, Khallow often spouts complete bullshit, with no regard for facts, ethics or respect for his fellow humans. I have no issue calling him (or anyone else, including you) out, and I'm sure he'll provide an opportunity for me to do so in the near term.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Monday March 06 2017, @08:30AM (6 children)
Ah, NotSanguine, you are either a far better human than I, or you have less experience with The Khallow, as I suggest we refer to him from now on. I sincerely hope your faith in humanity is confirmed. But as I said, bad faith will out, eventually. I have long tarred khallow with not only a brush, but the "tar-baby" of global warming. I think he is still stuck.
(Score: 2, Funny) by khallow on Tuesday March 07 2017, @10:08PM (5 children)
you are either a far better human than I
Choice A, right there. I want to point out an argument that the earlier AC made [soylentnews.org] in this thread:
He's always been a buffoon who was insulated from his fuckups by being born into money.
Everybody knew about his multiple bankruptcies with the airline and casinos.
Everybody knew about how he took out full page ads in major new york newspaper calling for innocent black teens to get the death penalty.
Everybody knew how he was a caricature of rich people wanting to put his name on everything, live in a gold-plated palace and scream "your fired" at people he didn't like.
Here's [soylentnews.org] another AC argument:
He seems to be continuing Bush's and Obama's unconstitutional mass surveillance of the populace. That's strike one and you're out. But he also doesn't show any signs of scrapping the TSA, doesn't want to shut down Gitmo, has supported asset forfeiture, has supported the drug war, and has appointed numerous corrupt people to positions of power. Trump has already proven himself to be garbage, just like Obama and Bush did, and he did so almost immediately. Doing the occasional good thing (scrapping the TPP) does not make up for continuing the previous policies of violating our fundamental liberties. To me, if a politician violates the Constitution, that is treason; they are nearly all traitors.
This is what real argument looks like, aristarchus. It's not pointless and unsupported ad hominems you consistently apply against me or the other variety of fallacies you commonly employ elsewhere. In addition to the above post, we have three others to date:
OH MY FSM, do not do that! It will only encourage him! He has learned nothing, he has only been proven, once again, of many times, to be factually in error! and it is not a mistake! khallow gets things wrong on purpose! I used to think he was just stupid, but then he confessed he has a terminal degree. Unfortunately it is one of those degrees that requires very little actual thinking. So when we can call out his duplicity, his two-facedness, his perfidy and perversity, we should just do it. No apologies necessary. No walking it back, the accusations are deserved. Do not let khallow become our own SoylentNews Trump. Just don't let it happen.
khallow, obviously it was an obvious rebuttal of your rather idiotic dismissal of Trump's request for his Russian Minions to hack the DNC and Hilary as merely being sarcasm! Oh, the person claiming sarcasm on the part of the Drumfuerer, does not understand sarcasm in response? I am once again totally dumbfounded by your disingenuity, khallow. How much lower can you sink? Hitler did some good? Moussolini make the trains run on time? Vlad did not impale everyone, you know.
Well, one for sure, the one that doesn't think that Trump is quite insane. C'mon, khallow! Darth Cheetos can't tell the difference from an NSA tap, which you never find out about, and a Russian tap! In fact, is not "Russian Tap" just another term for "golden shower"?
Notice that every single one of your posts in this discussion are mere baiting of myself - mentioning me by name and then hurling empty insults.
Elsewhere you have demonstrated a considerable mendacity. For example, much of your rhetoric is based around the pretense that you are knowledgeable while your foes are ignorant or as above deceptive. I even made a post [soylentnews.org] about this conceit which includes three examples of you berating others for ignorance even though in one case, the other poster knew more than you did. In that case where you were more ignorant, you even turned your ignorance into a classic fallacy of argument from ignorance in there where you argue [soylentnews.org]
Are you really going to try to downplay corruption just because it had an unknown effect
Is this an actual question? How can it be corruption if it had no effect? Or a counter-corrupting effect? All you are saying is that you don't know. You are saying nothing. By trying to make it seem like I am saying something, you are still saying nothing. What was the algorithm the Clinton campaign used? Oh, you don't know? Was it corrupt? Maybe, you don't know. Was it inaccurate on predictions? Obviously. Why? You don't know.
Or mixing [soylentnews.org] a little argument from authority fallacy in with your ad hominem:
But we cannot debate climate change, because there is no debate. It is obvious to everyone that the denier position is only a facade, dependent on the demand to prove a negative, and committed to preserving the profits of the petrochemical industry.
Then there's the time you accused me [soylentnews.org] of being off-topic in order to dismiss my argument.
You would be better served in this discussion to pay attention to the examples [examples by me of how climate change mitigation wasn't an improving of the world as a prior poster had claimed] I gave.
Why, oh why, Fluffy khallow? This is a thread about butterflies and science, not your bizarre obsession with alternative energy and progressives and the communists putting something in our water. You have already thread-jacked enough, khallow. Please stop.
While it's a legitimate fact that I was off-topic, it ignores that I was responding to an off topic claim about the efficacy of climate change mitigation in making a better world. And is anyone surprised, aristarchus that you are concerned about off topic stuff only when you want to bother someone? All four cases I quoted above in this discussion are at best tenuously linked to the story (by occasionally mentioning Trump and his supposed foibles). Where's your supposed interest in on topic discussion now?
I'll finish this post with a prediction. I predicted a 60% chance that you'll emoragequit (with "quitting" being anywhere from hours to permanently) some point in the next two years, with some pretentious rationalizing for why you've chosen to play the fool for a few years (playing us for fools, disappointed in the bigotry of SN users, gotten bored with the game, tired of "teaching" us, whatever). Being aristarchus has to be wearing even on the days where all you do is post a few insults and you don't seem the type to go quietly.
As to your "tar baby" [soylentnews.org] strategy, I will spend some time on SN no matter what. Discussing your posts tends to be relatively low effort even when I'm extensively google-mongering as I am now. It's good practice for real arguments.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday March 07 2017, @11:14PM (4 children)
Notice that every single one of your posts in this discussion are mere baiting of myself - mentioning me by name and then hurling empty insults.
And did you notice that it works every. single. time? What is your point, khallow? Are you bucking for a slot in the Trump administration? Do you have Marxists under your bed? I predict that you, my dear and fluffy khallow, will learn some things in the next couple of years. But my predictions have a very bad track record.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday March 07 2017, @11:53PM (3 children)
And did you notice that it works every. single. time?
Define "works".
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday March 08 2017, @08:19AM (2 children)
And you think that I think that I am smarter than you? O, the obvious irony!! Seriously, khallow, sometimes I think that you have no idea what our little talks here on SoylentNews are actually about.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 08 2017, @01:14PM (1 child)
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday March 09 2017, @02:31AM
One more time, khallow! I have confidence that you can get it! Just reply to this post. That is all you have to do.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday March 05 2017, @04:14PM (16 children)
I get you're hoping beyond hope that Trump is some insane imbecile.
NO ONE is hoping that. As someone else said, NO ONE wants the guy who can launch nuclear weapons or start an aggressive war to be an "insane imbecile."
What many people ARE concerned about and realize is that Trump has made a lot of political progress over the past two years by making outrageous claims and statements against his opponents. He has one primary rhetorical strategy -- ad hominem. Don't talk about policy. Don't address your critics. Just ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTACK. If someone asks you a substantive question or brings up a serious issue with you, say something awful about your opponent: "I like people who don't get captured," "Stuff coming out of her... whatever..." etc. His whole campaign was launched on the idea that Mexico was sending rapists and other criminals to the U.S., despite the fact that there are no statistics showing that immigrants (legal OR illegal) are significantly more likely to commit crimes in the U.S. To the contrary, statistical analysis generally shows immigrants are slightly LESS likely to commit violent crimes (probably because they're scared of being caught and deported -- we DO actually deport people for violent crime).
Anyhow, it's an ingenious strategy. I don't think Trump's an "imbecile" -- he has just learned the way to play the media war is to deflect substantive discussion and debate by making insane claims about other people.
Thus, given his history, when Trump makes an outrageous claim about Obama's past behavior, it's perfectly logical to assume he's just trying to get the media to stop talking as much about actual problems. He got a few hours of decent coverage after his speech earlier this past week, until the whole Sessions controversy erupted, and then it was all Sessions all the time for a few days. Trump needed to "change the story," so he folllowed his playbook -- make outrageous claim about Obama, and the media will spend a couple days trying to refute that, rather than continuing its drumbeat on potential Russian connections with his cabinet, etc. (I do have to say that I've been skeptical all along of the supposed Russian connections and claims of election interference, but the number of unnecessary contacts with Russian officials is now getting a bit weird.)
I don't think Trump is stupid. He may be mentally ill in some way, but this is a clear strategy that he's used multiple times before. Until we see detailed proof, it's safe to assume he's just making stuff up to "change the story" to him.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 05 2017, @04:43PM
Just because Trump has found one weird trick to win the presidency doesn't make him smart, it makes him lucky.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 05 2017, @07:11PM
Actuallu, new developments re Sessions was tunning dry, at least for.a few.more days. Trump provides the perfect segway, and still allows the, Trump is trying to distrsct from Rusdia become the new meme in discussion. Trump doing.something sane and normal would have been the better distrsction.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 05 2017, @09:10PM (4 children)
100% of the illegal aliens who crossed the border without authorization have committed a crime. The second offense is a felony.
Nearly all illegal aliens have committed additional crime in support of their illegal status, usually including felonies. Identity theft is used to obtain housing, medical care, and employment. This is not a victimless crime; people's lives get fucked up. You may get giant medical bills that ruin your credit. You may get arrested for a crime you didn't commit.
I suspect your "statistical analysis" is leaving these out. In any case, you shouldn't be lumping illegal aliens in with legitimate immigrants.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 06 2017, @07:52AM (1 child)
You unAmerican bastard! You Nationalist Scum Racist! I spit right down your throat, and squeeze it back up only to watch you choke!
100% of the illegal aliens who crossed the border without authorization have committed a crime. The second offense is a felony.
Yeah, it would be a violation of American law, if they were fucking Americans!!!! But you see, they are not, so they are not bound by the US Legal system. The break no law, except the racist law inside your racist head, you racist asshole of a nation to which you do not belong!!! All Americans have crossed the border illegally, without the permission of the native nations of the continent. So take your fucking Eurocentric perspective and stuff it up your fucking white pointy hood, because the Native American Border Control Agency will soon be coming for your white ass. No as for those brothers and sisters from the south, born of the soil of the Americas? We will cut them some slack. America!! Love it, or give it back!!!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday March 07 2017, @10:10PM
Yeah, it would be a violation of American law, if they were fucking Americans!!!! But you see, they are not, so they are not bound by the US Legal system.
The obvious rebuttal is that one doesn't have to be a US citizen in order to be bound by US law.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday March 06 2017, @07:12PM
...which is at most about half of all undocumented or "illegal" immigrants. The rest have not necessarily committed any crime at all.
Got any evidence of that?
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday March 06 2017, @09:11PM
In any case, you shouldn't be lumping illegal aliens in with legitimate immigrants.
I wasn't. I said "legal OR illegal" specifically to note that I was considering the analysis separately, though it's hard to find good statistics (since many studies admittedly do tend to lump the two together). If I had said "legal AND illegal," I would be lumping them together, but I specifically included the parenthetical for a reason.
Second, you miss the whole point of Trump's declaration, which was that Mexico is SENDING rapists and criminals to the U.S. Here, again, was the exact quotation:
When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.
The most straightforward way of parsing his sentences is that (1) Mexico has people who commit rapes (and other crime) in Mexico, (2) they "send" them to the U.S., and (3) they commit rape in the U.S. by "bringing" it to the U.S. Or maybe some of the non-rapists (e.g., the drug dealers?) are "bringing" other Mexicans who then proceed to commit the rapes. I suppose you could read it that way too. Do you have any evidence that this is the case?
Anyhow, it doesn't make sense to apply Trump's declaration of "bringing crime" to things like crossing the border. That's not a crime you can "bring" to the U.S., unlike drug-dealing or rape. I'm NOT defending illegal crossings -- I'm pointing out that doesn't seem to be what Trump was talking about, which is the point under discussion. (For that matter, note that Trump himself made no distinctions in his statement between legal vs. illegal immigrants, so I expect you'll call out him for that too??)
For those immigrants who commit crimes like identity theft, I'll join you in condemnation. But again, that's not the kind of stuff Trump was talking about. Note in your quotation from my post that I repeatedly said "violent crime," which is typically the examples that Trump has brought up. If he were talking about ID theft and specifying illegal immigrants stealing IDs or whatever, we would be having a completely different discussion here.
Again, go back and read my whole post, which was about inflammatory language and ad hominem. Trump said "rapists" as his primary example of crime Mexico "sends" to the U.S. (again, no distinction made between illegal vs. legal immigrants). I'm NOT defending illegal immigration, nor identity theft or whatever. But that has nothing to do with whether Trump's statements were both inaccurate and deliberately inflammatory.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 06 2017, @12:20AM
NO ONE is hoping that. As someone else said, NO ONE wants the guy who can launch nuclear weapons or start an aggressive war to be an "insane imbecile."
To the contrary, I think everyone ravening merely because someone hasn't agreed that Trump is stupid and crazy is precisely that. They're emotionally invested in the story.
It's just like virtually all of of the story-telling arts. No one watches a Hamlet play because they hope this time, that Hamlet gets his act together in Act III, preventing the tragedy of the latter part of the play. No one watches action movies, hoping that the story works itself out without conflict and nobody gets hurt. We want stories of conflict, good versus evil, exciting explosions, and similar fare.
That's all fine until you start seeing those stories in mundane real life and treating it the same way.
What many people ARE concerned about and realize is that Trump has made a lot of political progress over the past two years by making outrageous claims and statements against his opponents. He has one primary rhetorical strategy -- ad hominem. Don't talk about policy. Don't address your critics. Just ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTACK. If someone asks you a substantive question or brings up a serious issue with you, say something awful about your opponent: "I like people who don't get captured," "Stuff coming out of her... whatever..." etc. His whole campaign was launched on the idea that Mexico was sending rapists and other criminals to the U.S., despite the fact that there are no statistics showing that immigrants (legal OR illegal) are significantly more likely to commit crimes in the U.S. To the contrary, statistical analysis generally shows immigrants are slightly LESS likely to commit violent crimes (probably because they're scared of being caught and deported -- we DO actually deport people for violent crime).
Another story. I don't disagree that he does this. I do disagree that it's normally a successful strategy or is "ingenious". It isn't ingenious to have a weak opponent through happenstance.
Thus, given his history, when Trump makes an outrageous claim about Obama's past behavior, it's perfectly logical to assume he's just trying to get the media to stop talking as much about actual problems. He got a few hours of decent coverage after his speech earlier this past week, until the whole Sessions controversy erupted, and then it was all Sessions all the time for a few days. Trump needed to "change the story," so he folllowed his playbook -- make outrageous claim about Obama, and the media will spend a couple days trying to refute that, rather than continuing its drumbeat on potential Russian connections with his cabinet, etc. (I do have to say that I've been skeptical all along of the supposed Russian connections and claims of election interference, but the number of unnecessary contacts with Russian officials is now getting a bit weird.)
What is weird about it? There is considerable opportunity for shenanigans and message passing, but Russia is a big player and there's going to be a lot of contacts naturally.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday March 06 2017, @12:50AM (7 children)
Here's my question: Can't people take him to court for these outrageous claims? I mean if I went on national TV here (UK) and started accusing prominent people of serious crimes I'd find myself up on libel / slander charges pretty quickly. Don't Obama or any of Trump's other targets have similar recourse?
Also, is nobody else worried by the fact that Rupert Murdoch apparently has a direct, unfiltered puppet-string via Fox 'News' into the brain of the Commader-in-Chief of the world's most expensive military?
(Score: 1) by Demena on Monday March 06 2017, @12:59AM (5 children)
Not while he is a sitting president I believe.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 06 2017, @07:17AM (4 children)
You are correct. He can't be sued for anything he does in his job as president and if this shit is true its totally something a president would care about.
He can still be sued for stuff he does as a private citizen, while in office like if the restaurant at his country club gives everyone food poisoning. But even then the courts will almost certainly let him delay the case until he's out of office because the business of running the country is very important.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 06 2017, @08:37AM (2 children)
You are correct. He can't be sued for anything he does in his job as president and if this shit is true its totally something a president would care about.
False. All this changed when cases against Pres. Clinton were allowed to go forward, and then further allowed to become the basis for impeachment proceedings. Republicans, not too bright, and what they have sown will be reaped, and they will be raped with what they have reaped, in the rotunda of the circle of life and limiting Obama to a single terms, because Trump is, well, a liability. Why do we have just so many constitutional scholars right here on SoylentNews? Do they all have their degrees from Liberty or Regent Universities? Bush era DOJ, dumb as a bag of rocks, but very religious rocks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 06 2017, @10:21AM (1 child)
No. The investigation against clinton was a special prosecutor authorized by congress, not a libel lawsuit. It was totally politically motivated, but at the time it was authorized it was nominally about fraud with the whitewater real estate boondoggle. When that turned up nothing, as all of the "investigations" into the clintons have, Starr went fishing for something to justify his job and came up with lying about blowjobs.
There is no chance that congress is going to authorize a special prosecutor to go after trump for stupid shit he says on twitter. If for no other reason than the republicans hold a majority in congress. Maybe they will do one on Russia's interference in the election, and maybe it will lead into going after Trump himself. But even then its not going to be for libel.
> Why do we have just so many constitutional scholars right here on SoylentNews?
lol, look at you. No, really, look at you in the mirror.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 06 2017, @10:36AM
Wrong again. Paula Jones. Different case, prior to any special prosecutor. Yes, it's legal stuff, so it's complicated and confusing. Perhaps you should seek a professional opinion?
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday March 06 2017, @11:29AM
Perhaps then the solution is for some crowdfunded organisation to start suing the shit out of Fox, Brietbart for each and every provable falsehood they publish. I'd throw some money into that bucket. Perhaps when they are constantly tied up in legal battles either they will start being more careful about what they publish or their viewers might start to question the veracity of their 'news' source.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday March 06 2017, @09:26PM
The standard for libel in the U.S. for statements against public figures is called "actual malice." What this generally means legally is that you write something against someone publicly that you KNOW for certain is not true, but you write it anyway. The problem with statements like Trump makes is that he could likely claim there was some sort of uncertainty -- he saw a report about X, which he assumed also applied to Y or whatever.
The "actual malice" standard also includes the possibility of "reckless disregard" for whether the statement is true or false. I think there would be a strong argument that Trump frequently has made statements that would fall under the "reckless disregard" category.
Anyhow, as to whether this could actually lead to a suit (and it would have to be a lawsuit, since criminal libel is basically dead in the U.S.) -- there are court cases that say presidents are immune to civil damages and liability when they are conducting official presidential acts. But the law has never really tested whether tweeting about a conspiracy theory qualifies as part of Trump's official "presidential duties." I doubt Obama would bring a suit. Eventually, though, Trump may cross the line and someone might actually try to sue him.